Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

concertina226 writes "Jesselyn Radack, a human rights lawyer representing Edward Snowden, has claimed that she was detained and questioned in a 'very hostile' manner on Saturday by London Heathrow Airport's Customs staff. Radack freely disclosed to the border agent that she was going to see members of the Sam Adams Associates group, and when he realized that the meeting would be happening at the Ecuadorian Embassy, he went on to ask her if Julian Assange would be in attendance and to ask her about why she had traveled to Russia twice in three months."

Use whatever petty powers might end up being called constitutional in a court of law, even if it's clearly against the spirit, because, hey, how else are you going to exert your authority over someone who's generally considered to have done a good thing?

Oh, they signed something. Well then, that's different. I can't speak too much for England, but I can say the US picked up a lot of bad habits from England... and 1940s Germany too. So if England is anything like the US, then the constitution and local policies and practices trump international agreements. Additionally, "terrorism" defense trumps any and all aspects related to human rights, due process or any of that stuff.

The only thing surprising to me is that a border agent cares enough to harass anyone. But then again, we're talking about border agents, not TSA.

The ECHR to which the parent refers is not simply an international treaty obligation. The articles and protocols it creates are explicitly enshrined in British law via the 1998 Human Rights Act, an instrument which while hated by our far right parties is IMHO one of the shining achievements of recent times (though not without flaws).
The draconian environment you'll undoubtedly find at UK border control is quite a different issue, but it's one that you'll find familiar the world over.

They rarely actually use the terrorism defense in specific cases. They use it to defend the laws that permit excessive discretion, and then in the individual cases, they claim they have to exercise this discretion and that they can't play favorites and citizens caught up in their policies just need to cooperate and defer to the discretion of the overworked security agents protecting[sic] them.

Please don't hold up your constitution as the great example of how rights must be implemented.

I would go into a diatribe about it but George Carlin said it well enough:ref: http://mindofv.blogspot.co.nz/2008/04/excerpt-from-george-carlin-on-rights.html

"Now, if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights. Alright. You know about it.

In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter.

Yeup, sooner or later the people in this country are going to realize the government doesn't give a fuck about them. the government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. it simply doesn't give a fuck about you. It's interested in it's own power. That's the only thing...keeping it, and expanding wherever possible.

Personally when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all."

Maybe, or maybe Five Eyes is just a way to reunite with its colonies. In America, British people get a lot of attention socially, I'm guessing that is true in other former colonies. There's an entire genre of literature loosely based on feudal England (fantasy) and it even breaks into the mainstream every now and then (game of thrones) to sort of soften up attitudes toward the recombination. Anyway, that's enough conspiracy BS, but it is something that could eventually occur if interests aligned sufficie

Advice, not authority. Believe it or not government officials are beholden first and foremost to the laws of their own government, and don't get *any* legal authority from foreign institutions unless they're operating within the borders of that institution's jurisdiction. Not even if the foreign institution is routinely flouting the laws that should be regulating its own behavior both at home and abroad.

Except how are you supposed to know the difference between a normal citizen and a "suspect" before they make a mistake? Such tactics *have* to be applied to *everyone* if they're to have any chance of being worth half a damn. Hell, Tom Cruise fell for that Scientology BS, who's to say he didn't get recently suckered into being a terrorist?

The only error here is that they applied the techniques to a human rights lawyer who may be able to raise a big enough stink to cause them some annoyance.

All right. How about we go back to the perfectly reasonable pre 9/11 security procedures, minus the lax "it could never happen here" mentality, and otherwise just trust folks not to be complete assholes? And accept that every now and then someone will do something terrible and people will die. It's life, shit happens. Most of it doesn't happen on airplanes. How many planes would have to blow up just to compete with the number of deaths due to drunk driving*? And yet we don't jump all over ourselves to throw away human dignity and vital liberties to stamp that out.

*Estimated 10,000+ U.S. drunk driving deaths in 2010. Most commercial airliners seat 200-500, let's call it 350 average. So, we need to average about three fully-loaded planes being destroyed every month just to be competitive with drunk driving, which itself doesn't actually rank all that high as a cause of death. Provided they keep the cabin door locked there's not much worse that a terrorist can do, and if we're getting three successful suicide bombings a month that's probably a symptom of far worse problems than lax airport security.

He was arrested by the UK police, which they were allowed to do because a European Arrest Warrant was issued.

In the UK, we don't like to lock up people who haven't been convicted of a crime, so after a few days he was released on bail. The UK laws say that if you're on bail then the court can set reasonable conditions to stop you running away. You have to stick to those conditions, or you can be punished under UK law. His bail conditions were to check in with the police daily, and report to the police at a specified date.

He had a chance to have legal counsel and to fight the European Arrest Warrant in court. And he did. First at the Magistrate's Court, and then he appealed to the High Court and then the Supreme Court. He lost all in 3 courts. He then had the option of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights and he decided not to.

When it became obvious he'd lost, he went and hid in the embassy. That was a breach of his bail conditions.

It's not even that, as others have mentioned, Heathrow airport just has this style of interrogation to enter the country.

Having read the article, nothing happened to her that didn't happen to me when I visited England. They just ask deep, 'piercing' questions, I suppose to curb the tide of illegal immigrants trying to sneak in from the US. Probably to steal their free healthcare or something?

The border staff are a national embarrassment, and are wildly, wildly incompetent.

I think they'd happily wave through a man going by the name of "Osama Bin Laden" (OK, he's dead who do we use now for the purpose hyperbole?) carrying a radioactive suitcase and declaring "Allah Akbar" and then hassle some poor American on a work visa for an hour or three.

Actually in my limited experience, the border guards seem to give Americans a really hard time if they've got work visas.

I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly. What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

Actually in my limited experience, the border guards seem to give Americans a really hard time if they've got work visas.

Here's the thing: British voters don't like the mass immigration from the EU over the last couple of decades. So, every once in a while, the British government set out to win votes by 'cracking down on immigration'. But the EU says they're not allowed to restrict immigration from the EU, so they, instead, crack down on the skilled workers coming into the country from outside the EU on work permits... which are the kind of immigrants most British voters are quite happy to see coming to their country.

It's not just the border guards that are incompetent, it's the entire British government. As the current floods so glaringly demonstrate ('hey, lets flood thousands of houses to SAVE THE BURDS!').

I weekly travel between countries due to my current consultancy work. In my limited experience, the border guards really aren't there waiting for you in arrivals for European or common-wealth countries.

I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly.

I weekly travel between countries due to my current consultancy work. In my limited experience, the border guards really aren't there waiting for you in arrivals for European or common-wealth countries.

It was the eurotunnel. Kind of by definiton they're there waiting for arrivals from a European country (France).

I've never had personal details questioned by UK border control.

He wasn't questioning my details.

Border guards often have a little chat. Normally they see nothing suspicious and you go on thinking w

I weekly travel between countries due to my current consultancy work. In my limited experience, the border guards really aren't there waiting for you in arrivals for European or common-wealth countries.

I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly.

I've never had personal details questioned by UK border control.

What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

I wouldn't know, I have yet to encounter it.

Can't tell you how it is from a EU resident perspective, but I definitely get asked about where I am coming from, going to, and sometimes where I am staying when going to the EU from the US and returning to the US from the EU. The US people don't always ask many questions, but sometimes they ask me more as a citizen than the EU guards ask. I probably was hassled the least coming from a certain South American country shortly after 9/11, which is surprising.

What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

I'm really not sure about Britanland, but here in the US, the proper response would be "Am I under arrest? And if I'm not under arrest, for what reason am I being detained?" The more you know, the better you can respond to charges or accusations.

Or, there's the ever popular "Can I speak with your manager/supervisor?"

What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

I'm really not sure about Britanland, but here in the US, the proper response would be "Am I under arrest? And if I'm not under arrest, for what reason am I being detained?" The more you know, the better you can respond to charges or accusations.

Or, there's the ever popular "Can I speak with your manager/supervisor?"

Believe me, the US CBP would not take kindly to that. Remember, different laws apply at the border (see: searching laptops) and they don't have to detain you, they can just throw you back on a plane to wherever you came from. It's generally wise to be pleasant and courteous if you don't what them to really ruin your day.

The border staff are a national embarrassment, and are wildly, wildly incompetent.

I think they'd happily wave through a man going by the name of "Osama Bin Laden" (OK, he's dead who do we use now for the purpose hyperbole?) carrying a radioactive suitcase and declaring "Allah Akbar" and then hassle some poor American on a work visa for an hour or three.

Actually in my limited experience, the border guards seem to give Americans a really hard time if they've got work visas.

I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly. What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

Gah. The last time I went through LHR was with my aging parents. My mom is diabetic and brought a nutritional supplement with her (Glucerna) to help keep her blood sugar stable on a long flight. We had a layover in LHR and were switching planes. The LHR security people were such dicks to her. They said that there was "no medicinal value" to her dietary supplement and held her at security for over 30 minutes. I was so pissed. And the previous time I went through LHR a baggage handler stole my USED gil

He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly.

That's part of their training. They try to catch people who are lying by asking the same question multiple times and challenging responses to see if the interviewee breaks down. It's most entertaining when you get a noob who stumbles while struggling to come up with what trick question to ask next. Just be polite and give truthful responses with minimal explanation unless prompted.

Question:"I would like to ask you some questions".Answer:"Feel free to ask me anything you like".Question one: "....".Answer: "You can speak to my lawyer about that".Question two:".....".Answer:"You can speak to my lawyer about that".Statement: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way, Mr. E/ Mrs.X".Answer: "Yes".

Sure it does. They just detain you until your lawyer shows up and answers. And if he doesn't show, they ask you again before either arresting you for some crime related to not answering or refuse your entry.

A U.S. Citizen cannot be denied entry to the country. They *can* confiscate your bags... but they can't deny you entry.

You can be denied exit of the last country before the USA. I was detained at Schipol (Amsterdam international airport), subjected to a strip search and a "friendly" but hugely intimidating amount of questions. They also physically disassembled (but made no practical attempt to access the data on) a LaCie Rugged external HD I had with me. I could not simply ask for a lawyer. I *DID* have all the marks for a targeted search and interrogation: Looked like a total punk stoner leaving Holland for the USA (I've n

You are not the only person I have heard have trouble flying in or through Holland.

A friend of mine is Iranian and went home to visit family, with planned extended layovers in Amsterdam to have a little fun in between.

Twice he has done this, and twice subjected to invasive searches, including full cavity searches. We are not talking about some punk kid either, I mean a 60 year old, gray haired IT professional....up against a wall with his cheeks spread.

Every time I have been through Customs and Immigration in the UK I have witnessed (or been subjected to) the agents there acting in a very demeaning manner towards travelers. To me it is SOP for the UK, to the point that I think the equivalent people in the US actually seem nicer.

So while she may have been targeted because of who she is and who she is representing, the style of the questioning is not surprising.

Every time I have been through Customs and Immigration in the UK I have witnessed (or been subjected to) the agents there acting in a very demeaning manner towards travelers. To me it is SOP for the UK, to the point that I think the equivalent people in the US actually seem nicer.

I don't know... I've been to the U.S. Had to fill in a form on the flight saying I am not a terrorist, spy etc. Then get finger printed, picture taken and asked if I am there for business or pleasure, then asked trick questions.

When I was a kid, the TV output from America and the UK made every effort to show us why the regimes of the Nazis and the Soviets were 'bad'. One might think the fact that both regimes had been directly responsible for the murder of tens of millions of Humans would have made such concerns redundant, but Human psychology proves that people respond far better to depictions of individual acts of petty cruelty over scenes of unthinkable slaughter.

The prevalent news source in the UK for most citizens is the Daily Mail (which likely wouldn't discuss these issues, because it's nowhere sensationalist enough), not the BBC. The BBC does have even close to as much of an influence. A lot of people don't even give a crap about the news the BBC reports.

expect the teeth and claws.
Snowden and Assange have tweaked the powerful, dragging their criminal deeds into the light.
NO ONE will be free to act as their agents, servants or mouthpieces without being harmed in every possible way.
Look at the collusion between Visa and the U.S. Government attempting to choke off Wikileaks.
If that is not evidence of common conspiracy, Visa acting to reduce its income in order to satisfy an agenda of government, what is?
Next time you think "Government vs. Business", remember this IS Business-government (fascism).

After having been harassed a few times during business trips to London after having worked for two London-based companies, I decided to never fly into London again if I can help it. Instead, I fly into Paris from either Moscow or the US, have a nice lunch somewhere near Gare du Nord, then take the Eurostar into London (about a 2-hour ride). The UK immigration officials at the rail station are way nicer and more polite, the process is much faster, and in general the suckage is much lower.

"Radack claims that the officer told her that she was questioned because she is on an "inhibited persons list", a term coined by the US Department of Homeland Security. It means the US Transportation Security Administration has officially instructed an airport operator or aircraft operator not to provide the individual with access to an area or with a boarding pass to the destination."

Mensch said that she is"proud" that Heathrow Border Force were "doing "their lawful job" by interrogating Radack. She has also insisted that Radack is not actually Snowden's lawyer but merely just a "legal advisor" trying to claim attorney-client privilege.

And what exactly is the difference between a legal advisor and a lawyer? It's not like you go out and buy a lawyer and they become your property. Do they need to represent you at trial? Then nobody can have a lawyer until the case has actually advanced to that point, and corporate lawyers may be in trouble.

The difference is that a legal advisor hasn't agreed to represent you in a (potentially theoretical) case. It is an idiotic distinction, because if a lawyer agrees to take the case if it arises, then they are in fact your lawyer regarding that issue. This is obvious and necessary when you consider that in civil cases, you're required to attempt to resolve the case before going to court.

They would have to be claiming that Snowden doesn't have an actual potential legal case that she would represent him in, an

Are you serious? Every single thing he does from here on could be another charge added by capricious prosecutors trying to prove a point. It's not like you or I where a small, harmless crime or misstatement is going to be overlooked. Someone somewhere in the bureaucracy of the FBI is building a gigantic case-file with everything Snowden does(and yeah, there's probably been a warrant issued too, so let's not pretend this isn't stuff they can bring to trial).

Federal prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant, according to U.S. officials.

Snowden was charged with theft, âoeunauthorized communication of national defense informationâ and âoewillful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,â according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

I contest #1, because people make things crimes for all sorts of reasons, and not all of those are about minimizing harm(though I believe they should be). And even then sometimes things that meet the letter of the law(i.e. revealing classified documents) don't always match the spirit(preventing spying for another country).

Who said anything about minimizing harm in any general sense? You annoy me, I buy a law banning doing the things that annoy me, and your actions now become a crime with myself as the victim and I can have you punished any time I choose to report you. Harm to *me* is minimized, that's all that's really important./psychopathic power monger mode off

Depends on what is being called a crime. In this case, they use the term "crime" as one would expect from some two-bit fascist commissar in a half-assed Junta. That is, the term "crime" is more easily translatable to "something that embarrassed the shit out of me, uncovered some bad doings, probably hampered my plans, and will require a lot of work on my part to get the sheep to ignore it."

No. The US embarassed the US. Snowden brought that embarrasment to everyone's attention. It isn't going to stop either. I remember a specific quote that the administration is aware of the harm Snowden's disclosure has caused. They are simply too arrogant or stupid to figure out that it was the actions of the US that are a complete embarresment, not those of Assange. If they didn't commit the crime, there would be nothing for Snowden to bring to light.

* The US Government is committing a crime. There is no way around this. No law trumps the constitution. Period. And, no, it is not a "living document" to be "interpreted".

Depends on what is being called a crime. In this case, they use the term "crime" as one would expect from some two-bit fascist commissar in a half-assed Junta. That is, the term "crime" is more easily translatable to "something that embarrassed the shit out of me, uncovered some bad doings, probably hampered my plans, and will require a lot of work on my part to get the sheep to ignore it."

This is what happens when politics and religion ride in the same cart. The dictator gets to set what is morally "right and wrong", and declare every violation of the law as a "sin".

Perhaps there are deals being worked out. These deals could be between Snowden and the US. Perhaps a deal with some other country. Perhaps a deal with a book publisher. Until a deal is reached, these deals should be private. Lastly, we should be very worried if no one is trying to make a deal because it signals that everyone has an entrenched and unyielding position.

More seriously, a child -- even a stupid child -- could tell that Snowden faces legal threats, among other threats. It's not foolish of him to consult with lawyers. Besides, you think there are no lawyers out to get him?

Dude, are you kidding? Win or lose, whatever lawyer represents him at any potential trial will stand to make a metric fuck-ton of money.

See also the lawyer (Jose Baez, I think?) that represented Casey Anthony in her little baby-killing trial. Hell, he probably did that one for free, because he knows full well that his name and number is now on the Rolodex of any defendant (potential or actual) in the region that happens to have an obscene amount of money in the bank.

You should have said "when you are as crazy as American politicians and large organisations".

"Americans" are no longer in control of their country. Yes one could argue its their own fault, but there is little they can do about it now.

You will find that the "average American" is quite personable and decent as you will in almost any country.

You will also find a bunch of rabid, sociopathic assholes just chafing at the bit to take over everything and fuck everyone in the ass for their own benefit. And woe be to you if you let them gain the reins of power.

Thugs have no authority. The are responsible for the crimes they commit and should be jailed immediately.

...unless they have guns and governmental backing. In this case, they're more properly classified as goons.:(

Usually, the best way to deal with a goon is by one of two methods, depending on governmental status:

1) publicity and shaming of their superiors. You do it hard and heavy enough to generate outrage, and force change to a positive direction (change in policies, fire the SOBs who performed the violations, etc.) When appropriate, a loud and messy lawsuit can provide the same results, and simultaneously enrich you a bit for your time and trouble.

2) subterfuge and quiet resistance. In the case when a government has begun its descent into fascism, your best bet is hide what you must hide, find workarounds to the obstacles, and quietly help remove the fascist elements of the government. As an addendum, carefully probe the possibility of bribery and other methods.

Sadly, we're fast becoming forced to go with #2 - in most of the EU and in the US. In the above case, I suggest that the lady in this story continue to scream bloody murder, and perhaps launch a lawsuit for any credible reason (she's a lawyer, it wouldn't be hard for her to figure out some reason) but meanwhile use the Chunnel next time, and then leave/arrive from a French (or possibly Spanish or German) airport.

*sigh*... if only the population at large would get their eyeballs off the TV and celebrity gossip for long enough to realize just how far down the shitter we're all heading...

The best way to combat such government behavior is a real life DDOS. Everyone should report at Heathrow claiming to know Snowden, Assange and de Miranda. Carry encrypted thumb drives with you (chockfull with vile porn ofcourse). Refuse to decrypt without a court order. This will overload the system within 24 hours.It would be even funnier if millions of ordinary citizens would end up on the no fly list. Report all government personnel and officials for spying! After all, they are part of a government with a broad illegal spying program targeted against their own population. So report them at home and overseas so they end up on no fly lists. Once a critical mass of people disallowed to fly has been reached, especially public servants, these programs will quickly get a review.

It might be better to go with cat pictures than vile porn -- a clever prosecutor might figure out a way to harass you with some legal BS over porn. Cat pics though -- as long as they are public domain or ones you took, no issues.

The best way to combat such government behavior is a real life DDOS. Everyone should report at Heathrow claiming to know Snowden, Assange and de Miranda. Carry encrypted thumb drives with you (chockfull with vile porn ofcourse). Refuse to decrypt without a court order. This will overload the system within 24 hours.It would be even funnier if millions of ordinary citizens would end up on the no fly list. Report all government personnel and officials for spying! After all, they are part of a government with a broad illegal spying program targeted against their own population. So report them at home and overseas so they end up on no fly lists. Once a critical mass of people disallowed to fly has been reached, especially public servants, these programs will quickly get a review.

And just like a DDOS they would start filtering and dropping packets (ie refusing people entry).

If you're going to be pedantic, then to call someone a thug you would need to be asserting that they are devoted to the worship of Kali. And that they abstained from attacking women, holy men, or mad men.

Words don't retain their original meaning, and goon no longer means a hired bully. Either a dolt or a unemployed bully would also qualify under modern usage.

Actually, if Slashdot users could Exclude Stories by Tag, so that I, for instance, could simply exclude all the Snowden whining from my feed, now that would be an incredibly useful feature for Slashdot Beta.

I don't begrudge people their obsessions. So if you've really got a hard-on for every single conspiracy theory involving the man ("Greenwald's new Wordpress-based toy website crashing under millions of hits - they must have been hacked by the NSA!"), have fun. But please Slashdot, give the grownups a bit